‫‪The Bronze Metallurgy in the Iron Age‬‬ ‫‪Tin Bronze Production Tradition during the Iron Age in the Central Zagros‬‬ ‫‪Omid Oudbashi‬‬ ‫‪Department of Conservation of Cultural and Historical Properties, Art University of Isfahan‬‬ ‫‪o.oudbashi@aui.ac.ir‬‬ ‫فلزگری مفرغ در عصر آهن‬ ‫سنت تولید مفرغ قلعدار در عصر آهن در زاگرس مرکزی‬ ‫امید‌‌عود‌باشی‬ ‫چکیده‪‌:‬بسیاری‌از‌پژوهشگران‌و‌باستان‌شناسان‌به‌مقولۀ‌توسعۀ‌فلزگری‌مفرغ‌قل ‌عد‌ار‌ د‌ر‌منطقۀ‌لرستان‌ د‌ر‌ د‌وران‌پیش‌ازتاریخ‌پرد‌اخته‌اند‌‪‌.‬‬ ‫مفرغ‌قل ‌عد‌ار‌نخستین‌بار‌د‌ر‌اوایل‌هزارۀ‌سوم‌پ‪.‬م‪(‌.‬عصر‌مفرغ‌قد‌یم)‌د‌ر‌غرب‌ایران‌استفاد‌ه‌شد‌‌و‌د‌ر‌عصر‌آهن‌(پایان‌هزارۀ‌د‌وم‌و‌اوایل‌هزارۀ‌‬ ‫یکم‌پ‪.‬م‪‌).‬د‌ر‌منطقۀ‌لرستان‌رواج‌کامل‌یافت‌که‌با‌نام‌مفرغ‌های‌لرستان‌مشهورند‌‪‌.‬باوجود‌‌این؛‌علی‌رغم‌انبوه‌اشیای‌مفرغی‌ب ‌هد‌ست‌آمد‌ه‌از‌‬ ‫حفریات‌غیرمجاز‌و‌کاوش‌های‌باستان‌شناسی‪‌،‬فقط‌چند‌‌پژوهش‌تحلیلی‌و‌علمی‌د‌رباب‌فلزگری‌مفرغ‌های‌قل ‌عد‌ار‌عصر‌آهن‌د‌ر‌لرستان‌انجام‌‬ ‫شد‌ه‌است‪‌.‬این‌مقاله‌نتایج‌آزمایشگاهی‌موجود‌‌از‌چند‌‌نمونه‌از‌اشیای‌مفرغی‌لرستان‌را‌به‌صورت‌تطبیقی‌و‌آماری‌بررسی‌کرد‌ه‌است‪‌.‬این‌‬ ‫اشیا‌شامل‌مجموعه‌یافته‌های‌مفرغی‌با‌منشأ‌نامعلوم‌است‌که‌به‌موزه‌ها‌منتقل‌شد‌ه‌و‌نیز‌اشیای‌کشف‌شد‌ه‌از‌برخی‌محوطه‌های‌عصر‌آهن‌‬ ‫ید‌هد‌‌مفرغ‌های‌لرستان‌از‌آلیاژهای‌‬ ‫لرستان‌همچون‌ورکبود‌‪‌،‬برد‌بال‪‌،‬سنگتراشان‪‌،‬باباجیالن‌و‌چند‌‌محوطه‌ د‌یگر‪‌.‬نتایج‌این‌بررسی‌نشان‌م ‌‬ ‫مفرغ‌د‌وجزئی‌با‌میزان‌قلع‌متفاوت‌ساخته‌شد‌ه‌اند‌؛‌هرچند‌‌د‌ر‌ترکیب‌برخی‌از‌اشیا‌آرسنیک‌و‌سرب‌نقش‌مهمی‌د‌ارند‌‪‌.‬شایان‌ذکر‌است‌که‌بر‌‬ ‫اساس‌ترکیب‌شیمیایی‌برخی‌اشیا‌می‌توان‌گفت‌د‌ر‌مفرغ‌های‌لرستان‌هیچ‌رابطه‌ای‌بین‌نوع‌اشیاء‌و‌ترکیب‌آلیاژ‌آنها‌وجود‌‌ند‌ارد‌‪‌.‬روش‌هایی‌که‌‬ ‫احتما ًال‌د‌ر‌تولید‌‌مفرغ‌قل ‌عد‌ار‌این‌منطقه‌بکار‌رفته‪‌،‬شاید‌‌روش‌های‌آلیاژسازی‌غیرکنترلی‌مانند‌‌سمانته‌کرد‌ن‪‌،‬استحصال‌توأم‌سنگ‌معد‌ن‌های‌‬ ‫مس‌و‌قلع‌یا‌استفاد‌ۀ‌مستقیم‌از‌سنگ‌معد‌ن‌های‌مضاعف‌مس‌و‌قلع‌باشد‌‪‌.‬‬ ‫واژگان کلیدی‪‌:‬عصر‌آهن‪‌،‬لرستان‪‌،‬زاگرس‌مرکزی‪‌،‬مفرغ‌قل ‌عد‌ار‪‌،‬آلیاژ‪‌،‬آنالیز‌شیمیایی‪.‬‬ ‫‪Nevertheless, there are only some scientific‬‬ ‫‪and analytical studies about the metallurgy‬‬ ‫‪of tin Bronze in Luristan during the Iron Age,‬‬ ‫‪despite of large number of Bronze objects dis‬‬‫‪covered from looting as well as archaeological‬‬ ‫‪excavations. In this paper, a comparative and‬‬ ‫‪statistical study is undertaken on the avail‬‬‫‪able analytical results of some Bronze objects‬‬ ‫‪from Luristan. These are including the un‬‬‫‪provenanced collections in museums as well‬‬ ‫‪as objects excavated from some Iron Age sites‬‬ ‫‪Abstract‬‬ ‫‪The development of metallurgy of tin Bronze‬‬ ‫‪in the Luristan region during the prehistoric‬‬ ‫‪period has been a subject of interest for ar‬‬‫‪chaeologists and scientists. Tin Bronze was‬‬ ‫‪firstly used at the early Bronze Age (begin‬‬‫‪ning of the third millennium BC) in western‬‬ ‫‪Iran and was widespread during the Iron Age‬‬ ‫‪(end of second millennium and first half of‬‬ ‫‪the first millennium BC) at the Luristan re‬‬‫‪gion, well-known as the Luristan Bronzes.‬‬ ‫‪201‬‬ Proceedings of the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions such as War Kabud, Bard-i Bal, Sangtarashan, Baba Jilan and so on. The results show that the majority of Luristan Bronzes are made of the variable tin-containing binary Bronze alloy, although arsenic and lead have important role in the composition of some objects. Based on the chemical compsoiton of objects, it is worth noting that there is no correlation between objects’ typology and alloy composition in the Luristan Bronzes. The probable methods applied to produce tin Bronze may be an uncontrolled alloying operation such as cementation, co-smelting or using Cu-Sn complex ores directly. Keywords: Iron Age, Luristan, Central Zagros, Thin Bronze, Alloy, Chemical Analysis. 2005). Nevertheless, the results of some archaeological excavations during the 20th and 21st centuries revealed valuable evidences about the Luristan Bronzes (Muscarella 1990; Overlaet 2004). Accordingly, it is worth noting that the Luristan region can be considered as the most important area in the field of tin Bronze metallurgy during prehistory of the Iranian Plateau (Pigott 2004). Nevertheless, tin Bronze production tradition has not been studied carefully to understand the archaeometallurgical technology and production of tin Bronze during the Iron Age of Luristan. It may be due to the presence of few objects discovered from the controlled excavations as well as no possibility to sampling from majority of Luristan Bronzes belonging to the museums because of preventing damage to their integrity and preservation of their high craftsmanship quality. The aim of this paper is to review the results of some limited analytical studies undertaken on the Luristan Bronzes to characterize the tin Bronze production tradition applied by the ancient metalworkers to manufacture this individual collection. For this purpose, a statistical and comparative explanation is used to interpret the available data to show different aspects of tin Bronze alloying during the Iron Age of Luristan. The results of analysis of eight Bronze collections from excavated sites and unprovenanced collections of museums have been explained here based on the compositional features to show some aspects of Bronze technology in the Iron Age of Luristan. Because of some problems in presentation of analytical data in the published reports, parts of the analytical data have been used in the statistical descriptions and some analyses are withdrawn during the descriptive statistic processes. The sites and collections studied here include analytical studies performed on Bronze objects of archaeological sites of War Kabud, Sangtarashan, Baba Jilan, Bard-i Introduction The importance of tin Bronze metallurgy in the Iranian Plateau is due to its long history and quality of this technology during the prehistoric period. Although, the archaeometallurgical evidences proves that tin Bronze metallurgy has been widespread in the Iranian Plateau from the late third/early second millennium BC (Thornton 2009), but it is significant that the early examples of tin Bronze production and usage has occurred in western Iran in the beginning and middle of the third millennium BC (the early and middle Bronze Age) in the Luristan region (Begemann et al. 2008; Pigott 2004). Furthermore, the application of tin Bronze to manufacture different ritual and religious objects was extended during the Iron Age in the Luristan region, leading to occurrence of an extraordinary metal collection, namely the Luristan Bronzes (Oudbashi et al. 2013; Fleming et al. 2005). This largescale collection includes various types of objects found in the graveyards and sanctuaries in the Luristan region, western Iran; although majority of the present objects are un-provenanced, being derived from plundered graves and illegal diggings (Overlaet 2004; Overlaet 202 The Bronze MMetallurgy in the Iron Age; Tin Bronze Production Tradition during the Iron Age in the Central Zagros Fig 1. Map of Iran and Luristan as well as the location of majority of sites that are noted and explained in the paper. Bal, Kutal-i Gulgul, Godin Tepe as well as two unprovenanced collections from Ashmolean Museum and Nation Museum of Iran. 2007: 38; Otte et al. 2007; Roustaei et al. 2004; Emberling et al. 2002; Vanden Berghe 1973; Henrickson 1992; Mortensen 1992; Izadpanah 1997). Particularly, Luristan is very important in the history of ancient metallurgy and metalworking in the Near East. The first evidence of metal used in the Iranian Plateau discovered in the Deh Luran Plain which is located at the southwest border of Luristan and Khuzestan. It has been found in the Neolithic site, Ali Kosh (ca late 8th/early 7th millennium BC), where one piece of rolled bead of native copper has been found (Smith 1967; Thornton 2009). Furthermore, one of the earliest appearances of Bronze in the Near East is found in the early Bronze Age site of Kalleh Nisar graveyard (Pusht-i Kuh), dated to late 4th millennium BC (Pigott 2004; Fleming et al. 2005; Haerinck et al. 2008; Haerinck et al. 2006). Nevertheless, one of the significant archaeological phenomena in Iran is emergence of a Bronze production tradition in the Luristan region during the Iron Age. The Bronze artefacts from Luristan Iron Age have named as Luristan Bronzes and are one of the famous archaeological collections from prehistory of ancient Near East. The Luristan Bronzes are one of the best known categories of archaeological finds in Near Eastern art and archaeology (Fleming et al. 2005; Fleming et al. 2006; Muscarella The Archaeology of the Luristan Bronzes In the archaeological context, Luristan is a highland region located in the central Zagros mountain chain, western Iran. This ancient region is bordered in the west by Iraq, and surrounded by Khuzestan (Ancient Elam), eastern Zagros Mountain and Kermanshah region in other directions (Muscarella 1988; Overlaet 2004: 329). This area is dominated by three more or less mountain chains, the Kabir Kuh, Kuh-i Sefid and Kuh-i Garin, which run parallel from northwest to southeast. The Kabir Kuh is the highest mountain and splits Luristan into two areas, namely Pish-i Kuh on the east and Pusht-i Kuh on the west. Nowadays, the Pish-i Kuh is consisting of the modern Lorestan province and the Pusht-i Kuh is the modern Ilam province (Overlaet 2004: 330) (Fig. 1). This area is one of the oldest areas in human settlement in Iran. There are many evidences about human activities from the prehistoric to the Islamic periods such as Paleolithic caves, prehistoric settlements and industries, historic civilizations and Islamic monuments in the Luristan region (Young Jr. et al. 1966: 386; Mortensen 1993; Biglari 203 Proceedings of the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions 1988; Moorey 1982; Moorey 1969). These include a series of decorated Bronze artefacts inclusively specific local style, dating from the Iron Age of Iranian Plateau, about 1300-650 BC (Overlaet 2004; Overlaet 2005; Overlaet 2006). An enormous number of Bronze artefacts widespread in the museums and private collections worldwide attributed to this collection, which have been discovered through large-scale illegal excavations that carried out by local people in the late 1920s. The cultural context and provenance of these objects has long been unreliable and the label of Luristan Bronzes is often used unreasonable for many Bronze objects discovered from other regions or periods (Overlaet 2006; Muscarella 1988: 112; Muscarella 1990: 478; Moorey 1964: 72). The main characteristic of artefacts from Luristan Bronzes' style is stylized forms of human and animals that often have been combined to produce non-realistic and fantastic features (Fig. 2). Various species such as birds, horse, ax , snakes, goats and felines may be observed in Luristan Bronzes as visual components. Vegetal elements are mostly used in a famous form in ancient Near East the so-called “tree of life”, as motifs used for border or filler in/between the principal visual icons. The observed evidence reveals a chronological progress from simple naturalistic themes to more complicated and fantastic ones (Overlaet 2004; Muscarella 1990). Only a few excavation projects in Luristan have so far yielded examples of these Bronzes: Most significant were Erich Schmidt’s single campaign at the sanctuary site of Surkh Dum in Pish-i Kuh in 1938 (Schmidt et al. 1989) and Louis Vanden Berghe’s fifteen campaigns, all of them at graveyards at Pusht-i Kuh, between 1965 and 1979 (Haerinck and Overlaet, 2004). Twenty-five Luristan Bronzes of different forms have been published from Surkh Dum while significant number of Bronze ob- jects are reported from Vanden Berghe’s excavations in Pusht-i Kuh (Muscarella 1990, Fleming et al. 2006). In addition, Iranian archeologists have excavated about a half-dozen more Bronzes at the cemetery site of Khatunban in Pish-i Kuh (Haerinck et al. 2004). The only settlement site yet excavated in Luristan, Baba Jan in Pish-i Kuh, about 60 km north of Surkh Dum, yielded a Janus-headed tube and perhaps a zoomorphic pin, although the provenience of the latter is not certain (Muscarella 1988). Recently, two archaeological excavations related to the Luristan Bronzes are undertaken leading to discovery of a large Bronze collection from the Iron Age sanctuary in Sangtarashan as well as some Bronze objects from the small Iron Age graveyard at Baba Jilan, both in Pish-i Kuh (Oudbashi et al. 2013; Hasanpur et al. 2015). Archaeometallurgy of the Luristan Bronzes Despite the large amount of objects excavated in controlled or illegal excavations of the Iron Age of Luristan region, the analytical studies to reveal the technological aspects of the Bronze production tradition in the Luristan are very limited. Nevertheless, the published results show some aspects of Bronze technology in the Luristan region. One of the earliest works published in this fields is the results of analytical study undertaken on some unprovenanced Bronzes from Luristan kept in the Ashmolean museum of Oxford (Moorey 1964). In this study, 32 different Bronze objects with unknown origin are analyzed by spectroscopy method. On the other hand, Vatandoost-Haghighi (1977) analyzed significant number of copper alloy objects from prehistoric Iran including three objects attributed to Luristan by atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) Method. These two analytical reports can be considered as the earliest experimental works about the Luristan Bronzes. 204 The Bronze MMetallurgy in the Iron Age; Tin Bronze Production Tradition during the Iron Age in the Central Zagros Fig 2. Some Luristan Bronze artefacts from Falak-ol-aflak Museum, Khorramabad. a) animal finial, b) standard, c) decorated tube, d) Spike butted axe, e) horse bit, f) pin, g) whetstone socket, h) spouted vessel, i) round vessel. Photo Courtesy: Falak-ol-aflak Museum Archive. 205 Proceedings of the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions Study of the Bronze objects discovered during Vanden Berghe excavations in Pushti Kuh, was undertaken by specialists in the last decade (Fleming et al. 2005; Fleming et al. 2006; Begemann et al. 2008). Among them, analysis of some objects from Iron Age graveyards such as War Kabud, Bard-i Bal and Kutal-i Gulgul presents the technological features of Bronze technology in the western Luristan (Fleming et al. 2005; Fleming et al. 2006). Although the results of analysis of significant number of Bronzes from War Kabud is published in details, but the results of analysis of Bronze objects from Kutal-i Gulgul has not been published completely and only the chemical data of six objects of Bard-i Bal are reported. All analyses are undertaken by proton-induced X-ray emission (PIXE) spectroscopy. One of the significant analytical studies on the prehistoric copper metallurgy in western Iran is the work published by L. Frame (2010) on the metal objects excavated from Godin Tepe near Kangavar that are dated from the early Bronze Age to the Iron Age. The site has been excavated during 1960s-1970s by T. Cuyler Young, Jr. (Young 1974; Young 1972; Young 1969; Young 1968; Young and Levine 1974). Totally, 69 objects from this site are analyzed by electron probe microanalysis (EPMA), including 9 objects dated to the Iron Age (Frame 2010). In recent years, archaeological excavations are developed in the Luristan region and some interesting results are obtained, which improved our knowledge about the Luristan Bronzes. The archaeological site of Sangtarashan, near Khorramabad, is the most important sanctuary from the Iron Age of Luristan in which numerous Bronze objects of the Luristan’s type are discovered. The site is a simple building made of stone and clay binder, and many objects belonging to the Luristan Bronzes tradition are placed dur- ing the Iron Age. The site has been excavated from 2006 to 2011 by M. Malekzadeh and A. Hasanpour (Oudbashi et al. 2013; Malekzadeh et al. 2017). Analytical studies are undertaken on the Sangtarashan Bronze vessels by inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) and scanning electron microscopy-energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) (totally 39 samples) analyses (Oudbashi et al. 2013; Oudbashi et al. 2016a; Oudbashi et al. 2014). On the other hand, the study of Bronze objects excavated form Baba Jilan Iron Age graveyard (northern Pish-i Kuh) is another analytical work on the recent excavated objects of the Luristan Bronzes tradition (Oudbashi et al. 2018). The site is looted extensively, before archaeological excavations by A. Hasanpour, but the controlled excavations revealed some Iron Age graves with different grave goods such as Bronze and iron objects as well as potteries and decorative stones (Hasanpur et al. 2015). Totally, 21 Bronze objects from this site are analyzed by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS) method (Oudbashi et al. 2018). The Analytical Data Table 1 presents some information about the analytical studies performed on the Luristan Bronzes. It is worth noting that it is possible to study more analyzed objects from this collection but they have not been published well or the analytical method were not accurate for the archaeometallurgical studies or the results are not reported in proper form. Based on Table 1, it is visible that 224 objects are analyzed from Luristan Bronzes and will be explained in this paper; of course it is important to note that some objects from Sangtarashan are analyzed with both SEM-EDS and ICP-OES (please see Oudbashi et al. 2013; Oudbashi et al. 2016a). Thus, only the ICP-OES results of Sangtarashan are considered in the diagrams 206 The Bronze MMetallurgy in the Iron Age; Tin Bronze Production Tradition during the Iron Age in the Central Zagros Site/Collection Place of Collection Unprovenanced Ashmolean Museum of Oxford Unprovenanced War Kabud Bard-i Bal Kutal-i Gulgul Godin Tepe Sangtarashan Baba Jilan National Museum of Iran Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels Number of Objects Publication Moorey 1964 VatandoostHaghighi 1977 Fleming et al. 2006 spectroscopy 3 AAS 47 PIXE 32 Fleming et al. 2005 45 Frame 2010 Falak-ol-Aflak Museum, Khorramabad Oudbashi et al. 2018 Falak-ol-Aflak Museum, Khorramabad 32 Fleming et al. 2005 Royal Ontario Museum Oudbashi et al. 2013; 2014; 2016a that will present later in this paper. Also, the results of analysis of 45 objects from the Iron Age site of Kutal-i Gulgul have been published briefly by Fleming et al. (2005) and will only be interpreted briefly too here. Only, six Bronze objects from Iron Age IIB-III of Bard-i Bal are discussed in detail. On the other hand, the site of Godin Tepe is a settlement located in the northeast of Luristan and is not categorized as a site related to the Luristan Bronzes, but due to its location in the borders of the Luristan region as well as presence of some analyzed objects from the Iron Age, its analytical results are involved in this study for comparative purposes. Based on the analytical results, it is visible that the dominant composition used to produce the Luristan Bronzes is copper-tin or tin Bronze alloy.1 Among 224 analyzed objects from Luristan Bronzes, 201 objects are made of tin Bronze and 23 objects show different composition such as impure copper (9), arsenical copper (or arsenical Bronze) (5), leaded Bronze2 (6), ternary alloys such as Cu-Sn-Zn and Cu-Zn-Pb (2) and quarterly alloy including Cu-Zn-Sn-Pb (1). In fact, in ad- 1. The elements with 2 percent and higher are considered as alloying elements in the composition. 2. Tin Bronze alloy with significant amounts of lead. Analytical Method PIXE PIXE 9 EPMA 21 ICP-MS 38 ICP-OES, SEM-EDS Table 1- The characteristics of the metal collections related to the Luristan Bronzes and of the analyses undertaken on these collections. dition to the leaded Bronzes that are made of tin-copper and lead, the tin Bronze objects can calculate as 207 objects. Thus, the objects made of copper-tin alloy are 92.4 percent of all analyzed objects. Furthermore, the arsenical copper (or arsenical Bronze) is found as the main alloy in 5 objects from the Ashmolean collection and Godin Tepe and there is no evidence of using Cu-As alloy in objects found from the Iron Age site of Luristan region. It is interesting to note that the composition of objects from Ashmolean collection is variable and different compositions are observed in these objects including Zn-bearing copper alloys such as Cu-Sn-Zn, Cu-Zn-Pb and Cu-Zn-Sn-Pb. These types of alloys are not observed in the objects discovered from controlled excavations of Iron Age sites of Luristan. Based on the data available in Table 2 the main copper alloy used in manufacturing of the Luristan Bronzes is binary copper-tin alloy and other compositions observed between the Bronze objects can be considered as occasionally produced objects or forgeries, as noted by P. R. S. Moorey in the case of high zinc copper alloys observed in the Ashmolean collection (Moorey 1964). Of course, it is worth noting that the analyzed objects 207 Proceedings of the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions Site/Collection Unprovenanced Unprovenanced War Kabud Tin Bronze Arsenical Copper Leaded Bronze Ternary Alloy Quarterly Alloy Total − 25 3 1 2 1 32 2 1 46 − − 3 − − 47 − 48 − − − 4 26 Godin Tepe 5 2 2 Sangtarashan − 36 − 2 9 201 5 6 Baba Jilan Total 44 − 20 − 1 Kutal-i Gulgul Bard-i Bal Table 2. Descriptive and comparative statistics showing the results of analytical studies performed on the Luristan Bronzes. Impure Copper − − − − − 1 − − − − − − − 26 9 − − 39 2 1 224 − − 21 tamia, it has been noted that the specific Cu/ Sn ratios (such as 6:1, 8:1 or 9:1) have been applied by ancient metalworkers to produce specific types of objects (such as weapons, jewelries or vessels) (Potts 1997; Joannes 1997; Helwing 2009). Nevertheless, there is no evidence of controlled alloying process in the ancient Iranian Bronzes, and it has been referred to the use of an uncontrolled (or uncontrollable) method for alloying tin Bronze such as co-smelting or cementation as well as using Cu-Sn bearing complex ores (Oudbashi et al. 2016b; Oudbashi et al. 2017; Oudbashi et al. 2018). Fig. 4 shows the correlation between the alloying elements and additives in the composition of analyzed samples from Luristan including scatter plots of Sn versus As and Sn versus Pb. These elements have been the main alloying elements and additives in the prehistoric copper metallurgy (Thornton 2009). The diagram of Sn versus As shows that there is a reverse relationship between tin and arsenic in the composition of Luristan objects, as arsenic has no important role in the composition of tin Bronze objects while arsenical copper is identified as the alloy composition in some samples from Ashmolean collection and Godin Tepe. Furthermore, scatter plot of Sn versus Pb states that lead has no important role in the metallurgy of Luristan Bronzes, but there are some objects from archaeologi- from Kutal-i Gulgul are dated to the Iron Age I (second half of the second millennium BC) (Fleming et al. 2005) and the objects from Godin Tepe are not among the Luristan Bronzes tradition, thus it is not very strange to observe impure copper or arsenical copper in these collections. An interesting aspect in the composition of the Luristan Bronzes is the variable tin content measured in the objects with similar typology/function. It has been interpreted previously in the literature that the Luristan Bronzes –and other Bronze objects from prehistoric Iran- show no correlation between the tin content and typology (Oudbashi et al. 2014; Oudbashi et al. 2017; Oudbashi et al. 2018). Fig. 3 shows the scatter plot of Cu versus Sn in the composition of analyzed copper alloy objects from Luristan. Based on the diagram, it is visible that there is different ratios of copper and tin in the composition of objects form various collections and no correlation can be observed. For example, in 14 samples of Bronze vessels from Sangtarashan, tin content is variable between about 5 to 11 percent showing no correlation between alloy composition and objects’ type. This phenomenon can also be observable in other types of objects form different analyzed Bronze collections such as vessels from War Kabud or small objects from other collections. In the cuneiform texts from ancient Mesopo- 208 The Bronze MMetallurgy in the Iron Age; Tin Bronze Production Tradition during the Iron Age in the Central Zagros Fig 3. Scatter plot of Cu versus Sn in the composition of analyzed objects from Luristan. The number of objects from each site/collection is mentioned in the legend. cal sites beside some unprovenanced objects with high amounts of Pb. Despite importance of lead in the copper metallurgy during the prehistoric period worldwide, there is no evidence of using Pb as an additive to improve characteristics of copper and tin Bronze in the prehistoric metallurgy of copper in the Iranian Plateau. In fact, the analytical studies of copper alloys from the prehistoric period of Iran don’t show any significant evidence from deliberately use of lead as additive to copper and its alloys. Therefore, it can be derived from the scatter plots in Fig. 4 that arsenic and lead can be considered as impurities came from the gangue of the ores used to provide me209 tallic copper and/or tin used to produce the Luristan Bronzes. Based on the results of analysis of the Bronze Age copper alloys from Iran, it is visible that the binary tin-Bronze alloy has been the commonplace material used by the ancient metalworkers in western Iran from third millennium BC while arsenical copper (or arsenical Bronze) has been used until second millennium BC in other regions of Iran showing the long history of Bronze production tradition in western Iran (Oudbashi et al. 2016b; Fleming et al. 2005; Begemann et al. 2008; Thornton 2009; Frame 2010). Fig. 5 shows scatter plot of important trace elements in the composition of the analyzed Bronze objects from Luristan (Pernicka Proceedings of the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions Fig 4. a) scatter plot of Sn versus As in the composition of metal objects from Luristan, b) scatter plot of Sn versus Pb in these objects. The number of objects from each site/collection is mentioned in the legend. 210 The Bronze MMetallurgy in the Iron Age; Tin Bronze Production Tradition during the Iron Age in the Central Zagros Fig 5. Binary diagrams of trace elements in the Luristan Bronzes, a) scatter plot of As versus Sb in the composition of metal objects from Luristan, b) scatter plot of Ag versus Ni in these objects. The number of objects from each site/collection is mentioned in the legend. 2014). Diagram of As versus Sb shows very interesting aspect of the composition of the objects as in the objects of same site a good correlation can be observed. For example, objects of war Kabud are placed on a similar area in the diagram while many objects of Baba Jilan or Sangtarashan are in other areas of the diagram. Of course, some deviations are visible in some objects of same collection/site. Furthermore, scatter plot of Ag versus Ni shows similar aspect of the previous diagram. Nevertheless, some deviations are also visible here. Totally, the scatter plots state that there are similarities (correlations) between objects of War Kabud, Ashmolean Museum and Godin Tepe, while Sangtarashan, Baba Jilan and some objects of Ashmolean museum show good correlation. Thus, it is obvious that there is good correlation between unprovenanced and excavated objects showing the probable same origin (ore resources) used to produce metallic materials for manufacturing Luristan Bronzes. Of course, it is not possible to characterize the ore deposits used in production of Luristan Bronzes, but recent studies on the ore resources in western Iran revealed that the Deh Hosein copper-tin resource may has been used during the Bronze Age and the Iron Age to provide raw materials for production of the Bronze objects in the Luristan region (Nezafati 2006; Nezafati et al. 2006). According to the analytical studies of the Luristan Bronzes, following aspects of the metallurgical technology are visible: - The main alloy used in manufacturing of the Luristan Bronzes is binary tin Bronze alloy with low amounts of impurities such as arsenic, lead, zinc, nickel, etc. There is no correlation between tin content and object’s typology/function in the Luristan Bronzes. - In some cases, arsenic and lead have been determined as main alloying elements, sometimes beside tin. It may be due to accidentally entering of significant amount of these elements from the ores used to obtain metallic materials. - Presence of zinc (in the shape of ternary or quarterly alloy) in composition of some unprovenanced objects can be due to using Zn-bearing ores or because of forgery to make fake copies of Luristan Bronzes. Nev211 Proceedings of the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions ertheless, identification of forgery required more detailed investigations by different analytical approaches. - The ore deposits used in the metallurgy of the Luristan Bronzes are unknown, although some interesting evidences in Deh Hosein ancient mine are revealed in recent years. Nevertheless, the chemical composition of Bronze objects of Luristan show the possibility of using similar ore deposits in some cases. This needs more detailed studies in field and laboratory to find the probable ore resources used to obtain copper and tin during the Iron Age in Luristan region. are made of binary copper-tin alloy with variable contents of tin. The comparative results show that there is no correlation between tin content and typology of objects, contrary to the ancient texts about technology of Bronze production from Mesopotamia. On the other hand, there are only some objects made of other alloys and compositions such as arsenical copper, impure copper and ternary alloys that show some deviations from the tin Bronze technology in the Iron Age of Luristan. The results show that arsenic and lead have no significant role in the metallurgy of the Luristan Bronzes. Furthermore, the composition of the Luristan Bronzes is similar based on their trace elements’ contents, although in some cases more similarity is visible. Therefore, comparative and statistical analysis of the available data about the metallurgy of the Luristan Bronzes reveled some aspects of the Bronze production tradition in the Iron Age of western Iran. Identification of other aspects of Bronze technology during the Iron Age of Luristan needs to develop field, analytical, and provenance studies to find more details about this high craftsmanship technology of the prehistoric period of Iran. Conclusion The Luristan Bronzes are one of the distinctive collections of the prehistory of Iran that, despite of their importance in the archaeology of the Near East, has not been subjected to technological studies. The results of limited analytical investigations on the Luristan Bronzes are reported previously and a comparative study was done in this paper to characterize the Bronze production tradition used by ancient metalworkers to manufacture the artistic Bronze objects of Luristan. Based on the analytical results, the Luristan Bronzes BIBLIOGRAPHY Begemann, F., E. Haerinck, B. Overlaet, S. Schmitt-Strecker and F. Tallon 2008 "An Archaeo-Metallurgical Study of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in Luristan, Iran", Iranica Antiqua XLIII: 2-66. Biglari, F. 2007 "The Lower and Middle Paleolithic occupations of Iran: A Brief Review, in Persia: Fragments from Paradise", Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico City: 31-9. Emberling, G., J. Robb, J. D. Speth, and H. T. Wright 2002 "Kunji Cave: Early Bronze Age Burials in Luristan", Iranica Antiqua XXXVII: 47-104. Fleming, S.J., V.C. Pigott, C.P. Swann, S.K. Nash, E. Haerinck and B. Overlaet 2006 "The Archaeometallurgy of War Kabud, Western Iran", Iranica Antiqua XLI: 31-57. Fleming, S.J., V. C. Pigott, C. P. Swann and S. K. Nash 2005 "Bronze in Luristan: Preliminary Analytical Evidence from Copper/bronze Artifacts Excavated by the Belgian Mission in Iran", Iranica Antiqua XL: 35-64. Frame, L. D. 2010 "Metallurgical investigations at Godin Tepe, Iran, Part I: The metal finds", Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 1700-15. Haerinck, E. and B. Overlaet 2004 The Chronology of the Push-i Kuh, Luristan, Results of the Belgian Archaeological Mission in Iran, From Handaxe to Khan, Essays Presented to Peder Mortensen on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, Aarhus, 119-35. 212 The Bronze MMetallurgy in the Iron Age; Tin Bronze Production Tradition during the Iron Age in the Central Zagros 2006 Luristan excavation documents, vol. VI: Bani Surmah: an Early Bronze Age graveyard in Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan, Acta Iranica 43, Peeters, Leuven. 2008 Luristan excavation documents, vol. VII: The Kalleh Nisar Bronze Age graveyard in Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan, Acta Iranica 46, Peeters, Leuven. Haerinck, E., Z. Jaffar-Mohammadi and B. Overlaet 2004 "Finds from Khatunban B-Badavar valley (Luristan) in the Iran National Museum, Teheran", Iranica Antiqua 39: 105-68. Hasanpur, A., Z. Hashemi and B. Overlaet 2015 "The Baba Jilan Graveyard near Nurabad, Pish-i Kuh, Luristan", Iranica Antiqua 50: 171-212. Helwing, B. 2009 "Rethinking the tin mountains: patterns of usage and circulation of tin in greater Iran from the 4th to the 1st millennium BC", TUBA-AR 12: 209-221. Henrickson, E.F. 1992 "Ceramics IV- The Chalcolithic Period in the Zagros Highlands", Encyclopedia Iranica V: 278-282. Izadpanah, H. 1997 Ancient and Cultural monuments of Lorestan, 3 Volumes, Tehran (in Farsi). Joannes, F. 1997 "Metalle und Metallurgie, A. I. in Mesopotamien", Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8: 96-112. Malekzadeh, M., A. Hasanpur and Z. Hashemi 2017 "Fouilles (2005-2006) à Sangtarashan, Luristan, Iran", Iranica Antiqua 52: 61-158. Moorey, P.R.S. 1964 "An Interim Report on some Analyses of Luristan Bronzes”, Archaeometry 7: 72-79. 1969 "Prehistoric Copper and Bronze Metallurgy in Western Iran (With Special Reference to Lūristān)", Iran 7: 131-153. 1982 "Archaeology and Pre-Achaemenid Metalworking in Iran: A Fifteen Year Retrospective", Iran 20: 81-101. 1994 Ancient Mesopotamian materials and industries, the archaeological evidence. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Mortensen, P. 1992 "Ceramics III- The Neolithic Period in Central and Western Persia", Encyclopedia Iranica V: 276-278. 1993 "Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic Sites in the Hulailan Valley, Northern Luristan", in D. I. Olszewsky and H. L. Dibble (Eds.), The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros-Taurus, Philadelphia: 159–187. Muscarella, O.W. 1988 Bronze and Iron: Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. 1990 "Bronzes of Luristan", In E. Yarshater, ed. Encyclopedia Iranica. Vol. IV, New York, Routledge & Kegan Publications, 478-483. Nezafati, N. 2006 Au-Sn-W-Cu-mineralization in the Astaneh-Sarband Area, West Central Iran, including a comparison of the ores with ancient bronze artifacts from western Asia. PhD. Der Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen. Nezafati, N., E. Pernicka and M. Momenzadeh 2006 "Ancient Tin: Old Question and a New Answer", Antiquity 80, 308. Oudbashi, O. and A. Hasanpour 2018 "Bronze alloy production during the Iron Age of Luristan: a multianalytical study on recently discovered bronze objects", Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 10: 1443–1458. Oudbashi, O. and M. Hessari 2017 "Iron age tin bronze metallurgy at Marlik, northern Iran: an analytical investigation", Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 9: 233-249. Oudbashi, O., A. Hasanpour and M. Malekzadeh 2016a "The Luristan Bronzes in Sangtarashan: Bronze Technology in Western Iran in the First Millennium BC", In: A. Giumlia-Mair and C. C. Mattusch, ed. Proceedings of the XVIIth International Congress on Ancient Bronzes, Izmir, Autun, Éditions Mergoil: 17-27. Oudbashi, O., R. Naseri and M. Malekzadeh 2016b "Technical studies on the bronze age metal artefacts from the graveyard of Deh Dumen, southwestern Iran (third millennium BC)", Archaeometry 58: 947-965. Oudbashi, O. and P. Davami 2014 "Metallography and Microstructure Interpretation of some Archaeological Tin Bronze Vessels from Iran", Material Characterization 97: 74-82. 213 Proceedings of the Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions Oudbashi, O., S. M. Emami, M. Malekzadeh, A., Hasanpour and P. Davami 2013 "Archaeometallurgical studies on the bronze vessels from Sangtarashan, Luristan, W-Iran", Iranica Antiqua XLVIII: 147–171. Overlaet, B. 2004 "Luristan metalwork in the Iron Age", In: T. Stöllner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust, eds. Persiens Antike Pracht. Bergbau Handwerk Archäologie, Exhibition Catalogue. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum: 328-338. 2005 "The Chronology of the Iron Age in the Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan", Iranica Antiqua XL: 1-33. 2006 "Luristan Bronzes: I. The Field Research", In: E. Yarshater, ed. Encyclopaedia Iranica Online, Originally Published: November 15, 2006. Available at http://www.iranica.com/articles/luristan-bronzes-i-the-field-research. Pernicka, E. 2014 "Provenance determination of archaeological metal objects", In: Roberts B.W., Thornton C.P. (eds) Archaeometallurgy in global perspective, methods and syntheses. Springer, New York, 239–268. Pigott, V. C. 2004 "On the importance of Iran in the study of prehistoric Copper-Basemetallurgy", In: T. Stöllner, R. Slotta and A. Vatandoust, eds. Persiens Antike Pracht. Bergbau Handwerk Archäologie, Exhibition Catalogue. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, 24-43. Potts, D. T. 1997 Mesopotamian Civilization: The Material Foundations. New York, Cornell University Press. Roustaei, K., H. Vahdati Nasab, F. Biglari, S. Heydari, G. A. Clark, J. M. Lindly 2004 "Recent Paleolithic Surveys in Luristan", Current Anthropology 45: 692-707. Schmidt, E.F., M. N. van Loon, H. H. Curvers 1989 The Holmes expeditions to Luristan. Chicago: The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 108, 2 Vols. Smith, C.S. 1967 "The Interpretation of Microstructures of Metallic Artifacts", in Application of Science in the Examination of Works of Art, Young, W.J. (ed.), September 7-16, 1965, Research Laboratory of Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: 20-52. Vanden Berghe, L. 1973 "Recherches Archéologiques dans le Luristān", Iranica Antiqua 10: 1-79. Vatandoost-Haghighi, A.R. 1977 Aspects of prehistoric Iranian copper and bronze technology. Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Archaeology: London Young, Jr., T.C. 1968 "The excavations at Godin Tepe: new light on the Archaeology of the Zagros", Archaeologia Viva 1: 156. 1969 Excavations at Godin Tepe: first Progress report. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. 1972 "Recent excavations at Godin Tepe", In: Kiyani, M.Y., Tajvidi, A. (Eds.), The Memorial Volume of the Vth International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology, 11th-18th April 1968, Tehran, vol. 1. Ministry of Culture and Art, Tehran, 204–210. 1974 "Excavations at Godin Teppeh – 1973", In Bagherzadeh, F. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran. Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, Tehran, 80–90. Young Jr., T.C. and L.D. Levine 1974 Excavations of the Godin Project: Second Progress Report. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. Young, Jr., T. C. and P. E. L. Smith 1966 "Research in the Prehistory of Central Western Iran: Recent preliminary excavations promise to document 40,000 years of prehistory in the Zagros Mountains", Science 153 (3734): 386-391. 214 Proceedings of the International Conference on The Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions 2-3 Nov. 2019 Kurdistan University, Sanandaj, Iran Vol. 2 Edited by: Yousef Hassanzadeh Ali A. Vahdati Zahed Karimi Tehran and Sanandaj Publisher: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism (RICHT) National Museum of Iran Kurdistan Province ICHHTO Kurdistan ICHHTO National Museum of Iran 2019 RICHT Kurdistan ICHHTO National Museum of Iran RICHT Proceedings of the international Conference on The Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighbouring Regions, 2-3 Nov. 2019, Kurdistan University, Sanandaj, Iran Edited by: Yousef Hassanzadeh, Ali A. Vahdati and Zahed Karimi Cover Photo: Neda Tehrani and Nima Fakoorzadeh Cover Design: Nina Rezaei Publishers: RICHT / National Museum of Iran / Kurdistan ICHHTO ISBN: 978-600-8977-91-9 © RICHT / National Museum of Iran / Kurdistan ICHHTO (2019) Board of Directors: Dr. Behrouz Omrani, General Director of RICHT Mohsen Alavi, General Director of Kurdistan ICHTO Dr. Jebrael Nokandeh, Genereal Director of National Museum of Iran Dr. Rohollah Shirazi, Director of ICAR Policy Council: Dr. M. H. Talebian, Deputy of Cultural Heritage in Iranian Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Handicrafts Dr. Jebrael Nokandeh, Genereal Director of National Museum of Iran Dr. Rohollah Shirazi, Director of ICAR Dr. Mohammad Ebrahinm Zarei, Sanandaj Governor and Associate professor in Archaeology, Bu-Ali University, Hamedan Dr. Bahram Nasrollahizadeh, General Director of Kurdistan Planning and Budget Organization Mohsen Alavi, General Director of Kurdistan ICHTO Scientific Editors - in Chief: Yousef Hassanzadeh, Archaeologist and Head of Research Center, National Museum of Iran Ali. A. Vahdati, Archaeologist and Research Associate, Northern Khorasan ICHTO Scientific Comitte: Dr. Hamid Khatib Shahidi, Professor emeritus of TMU (Tarbiat Modarres University) Mrs. Simin Lakpour, Retired Member of ICAR Dr. Siamak Sarlak, Research Deputy of ICAR Dr. Mehrdad Malekzadeh, Head of Research Center of RICHT Fr. Sajjad Alibeigi, Assistant Professor, Razi University, Kermanshah Dr. Amir Saedmoucheshi, Assistant Professor, Payam-e Noor University, Sanandaj Dr. Kazem Mollazadeh, Associate Professor, Bu-Ali University, Hamedan Dr. Mostafa Dehpahlavan, Assistant Professor, Tehran University, Tehran Dr. Fereidoun Biglari, Cultural Deputy, National Museum of Iran, Tehran Dr. Ali Binandeh, Assistant Professor, Bu-Ali University, Hamedan Executive Director: Zahed Karimi, Archaeologist, Kurdistan ICHHTO Province Table of Contents More Thoughts on the Destruction of Hasanlu IVB / John Curtis ......................................................... The Iron Age at Hasanlu, Iran: New Perspectives / Megan Cifarelli ..................................................... Ranking and Distribution of the Urartian Fortifications: A General View of the Urartian Territory / Raffaele Biscione and Roberto Dan ................................................................................................... Recently Discovered Rock-Cut Chambers in Orumiyeh County, Iran / Roberto Dan, Behrouz Khan Mohammadi, Keomars Hajji Mohammadi .......................................................................................... The rock niche of the Urartian king Minua at Ain-e Rum in Iranian Azerbeijan / Mirjo Salvini..... A contribution to the Iron Age Period in West Azerbaijan Province, Iran in Light of new research: Anaqizli Tapeh / Sandra Heinsch, Golam Shirzadeh, Qmars Hajmohamadi, Ali Darvish-Zadeh, Walter Kuntner ................................................................................................................................. Iron Age in western Iranian Plateau: a Long Debated Question / Bruno Genito, Esmail Hemati Asandaryani, Manuel Castelluccia ........................................................................................................... Complex landscapes and cities during the Iron Age of NW-Iran / Judith Thomalsky ...................... THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY: Revisiting Louis Vanden Berghe’s Tombe 1 at Karkhai / Yasmina Wicks and Javier Álvarez-Mon ............................................................................................................................ The arrival of the Persians into Fars / Mohammad T. Atayi and Michael Roaf ................................. Iron Age animal exploitation at the edge of the Dasht-e Kavir, central desert of Iran. The case of Shamshirgah (Qom-Iran) / Marjan Mashkour and Hamid Fahimi .................................................. The Bronze MMetallurgy in the Iron Age; Tin Bronze Production Tradition during the Iron Age in the Central Zagros / Omid Oudbashi ................................................................................................... Shiran: A Submerged Iron Age Grave in the Darian Dam, Hawraman, Kurdistan / Amir Saed Mucheshi and Sara Khalifeh Soltani .................................................................................................................. The First Iron Age Absolute Date from Kurdistan / Hamid Amanollahi ............................................ The Iron Age Dinka Settlement Complex in the Peshdar Plain, Archaeological Exploration, 2015-2018 / Karen Radner, F. Janoscha Kreppner and Andrea Squitieri .......................................... The Glazed Brick Façades from Ashur in the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin in context of the North-Western Iranian Glazed Bricks / Helen Gries and Anja Fügert ......................................... Some notes on arrangement pattern of the Trinity Symbols on the Rock–Cut Tomb of Qizqapan / Iraj Rezaie ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 21 45 63 80 94 113 137 152 175 191 201 215 227 243 258 273